POINT OF VIEW
Earthquake safety of houses in India : Understanding
the bottlenecks in implementation
Ramancharla Pradeep Kumar and C.V. R. Murty
According to current seismic zone map around 60%
of India’s land area is prone to moderate to severe
earthquakes. And earthquake losses, in terms of life and
property in last 2 decades have been high, with housing
contributing to over 95% of life loss; this failure attributed
to improper design and construction practices of housing.
Thus, all the three factors influencing earthquake risk of
houses in India are above danger levels in many districts
of India – hazard, exposure and vulnerability. This paper
classifies housing risk in the entire country into four
groups; about 47% of population is living in the highest
risk. Gigantic effort is required to mitigate the risk. The
paper also suggests some steps to move forward to reduce
earthquake risk to housing in India.
1. EARTHQUAKE RISK OF HOUSING
Earthquake Risk is the projected aggregated effect of the
expected number of lives lost, persons injured, property
damaged and economic activity disrupted due to an
expected strong earthquake in an area. Usually, it is
represented as the product of the prevalent earthquake
hazard (H) of the area, the number of persons exposed to
the earthquake hazard (E), and the known vulnerability
(V) of the houses in that area, as:


        ...(1)
Each of these components of risk has its own characteristics,
which can be spatial (e.g., hazard) temporal (e.g.,
exposure) and thematic (e.g., vulnerability of houses).
1.1 Seismic Hazard (H)
Earthquake Hazard is defined as the potential threat of
occurrence of a damaging earthquake, within the design
life of the house in a given area. The hazard due to an
earthquake can be reflected by expected intensity of
ground shaking (quantified by PGA, PGV and PGD), soil
liquefaction, surface fault rupture and slope instability.
India has experienced several major earthquakes in the
past few decades and according to IS 1893 (Part I):2007
around 60% (12% in Zone V, 18% in Zone IV, 26% in Zone
III and 44% in Zone II) of its landmass is prone to moderate
to severe earthquake shaking intensity. Especially, in the
last 23 years, the country has witnessed several moderate
earthquakes (Table 1) (Bihar-Nepal border (M6.4) in
1988, Uttarkashi (M6.6) in 1991, Killari (M6.3) in 1993,
Table 1. Human fatalities during past earthquake events
Year
Location
1988
Bihar
1991
Uttarkashi
1993
Killari
1997
Jabalpur
1999
Chamoli
2001
Bhuj
Casualties
Buildings Collapsed
1,004
2,50,000
768
42,400
8,000
30,000
38
8,546
100
2,595
13,805
2,31,000
2004
Sumatra
10,805
2005
Kashmir
~1,500
4,50,000
2006
Sikkim
2 Not available
Not available
[Murty, 2007; Sebeer et al, 1993; Jain et al, 1994; Jain et al, 1997; Jain et al, 1999;
Jain et al, 2001; Jain et al, 2005; Murty and Rai, 2005; Murty et al, 2011; Murty et
al, 2012]
The Indian Concrete Journal September 2014
51
POINT OF VIEW
Jabalpur (M6.0) in 1997, Chamoli (M6.8) in 1999, Bhuj
(M6.9) in 2001, Sumatra (M8.9) and Kashmir (M7.6) in
2005) caused around 40,000 fatalities due to collapse
of buildings. Seismic Hazard Assessment quantifies
the physical expression of the hazard, in the form of
intensity of earthquake shaking. Rational understanding
of the seismic hazard of the different areas is critical to a
meaningful risk assessment exercise.
Figure 1 shows the seismic activity in India from 1819
to 2009. There is a noticeable increment in the number
of earthquakes especially after 1950. Also, the fault
map of India (Figure 2) suggests the landmass is highly
fragmented by faults and the likelihood of damaging
earthquakes taking place at different areas. A seismic
zone map is expected to provide the levels of earthquake
shaking expected in different areas.
The Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) has been publishing
region. The second map was published in 1966 (Figure
3b). This map also is based on intensities experienced
during past earthquakes. Some portion of peninsular
India was upgraded from zone 0 to zone I. The third
revision of the seismic hazard map was in 1970 after
1969 Koyna earthquake (M6.5). This map divided India
into five seismic zones from zone I to zone V based upon
MSK Intensity Scale, again based on historically observed
intensities in these areas. Concept of seismic zone 0 was
abolished in support to the fact that there is no region
in India with probability of an earthquake equal to zero
(Figure 3c).
After the 1993 Killari earthquake and 1997 Jabalpur
earthquake, the researchers showed interest to develop
a comprehensive seismic hazard map of the country.
But the fifth revision of IS 1893:2002 that took place
immediately after the devastating 2001 Bhuj earthquake
did not bring new rationale. In this revision four zones
seismic hazard maps since 1962. The first map of 1962
identified seven zones (Figure 3a). The division of seismic
zones was based upon the Maximum Mercalli Intensities
(MMI) of earthquakes experienced in the past in each
area. These were named Zone 0, I, II, III, IV, V and VI.
SEISMIC FAULTS
The Peninsular India was said to be stable and aseismic
No. of earthquakes ( M w >3.5 )
120
100
80
LEGEND
60
Fault
Sub-surface fault
Shear zone
Neotectonic fault
40
20
0
1840 1860 1880 1990 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000 2002
Years
Figure 1. Past earthquake events in India in last 160 years
52
The Indian Concrete Journal September 2014
Thrust
Neotectonic thrust
Trench axis
Suture
Normal fault
Strike slip fault
Volcano
Figure 2. Map showing major faults in India ( Based on GSI, 2003)
POINT OF VIEW
IS 1893:1962
IS 1893:1966
(b)
(a)
IS 1893:1984
IS 1893:2002
(d)
Figure 3. Sketches of seismic zone maps of India (Based on IS 1893-1962, 1966,1984 and 2007)
The Indian Concrete Journal September 2014
53
POINT OF VIEW
were adopted namely zones II, III, IV and V (Figure 3d).
The erstwhile areas under zone I were merged with areas
in Zone II. Zone II is said to experience low intensities
of shaking and zone V high. Most of peninsular region
is shown under zone II and III. Zone I was completely
discarded in this revision. This map only tells about the
intensity experienced in the past, but not the intensity
of shaking expected in the future. It does not address
another concern, namely what is the maximum shaking
intensity that is likely to occur during the life of a house
in a certain area of the country. But, for a common man
the value of probability is not important. It is necessary to
know the worst intensity of shaking that his house should
be designed for so that he is safe during that expected
design event. Table 2 gives the projected intensities of
shaking in different seismic zones in India.
2007], the housing shortage is estimated to be about 25
million. And according to 2011 Census [MHA, 2011],
Indian urban population constitutes 32.25%. However,
it is increasing at an alarming rate of 4% per year. The
number and proportion of cities with a population of one
million or more has grown significantly in recent decades.
From 12 in 1981 with 26.8% share of the total population,
the number of million-plus cities has increased to 35 in
2001 with 37% share of the total urban population. In
addition housing shortage is already higher in urban
areas, notwithstanding the ever increasing population
densities. Figure 4 shows the district-wise spatial
distribution of population density in India. Population
in India is distributed unevenly with minimum of 50
persons per km2 in some districts and up to 14000 persons
per km2 in some other districts.
1.2 Exposure (E)
Currently, there are over 300 million census houses
as per Census 2011 of India [MHA, 2011]. The increase
with respect to previous decade is around 18-25%; it is
showing a decreasing trend (Table 3). But, the absolute
number of houses is rising; the decadal increment of the
houses added with respect to the building stock in 1961
has been increasing since independence. The last decade
of 2001-2011 shows an increase of about 43.8%. This has
Presently, India is home for about 1.2 billion people.
Over the last six decades, there has been a great shift of
population from rural to urban areas, thus increasing the
densities of population in urban areas. This suggests that
about 300 million houses are necessary to house them.
According to National Housing Policy 2007 [MoHUAPA,
Table 2. Intensity corresponding to different zones as per
IS 1893 (Part I)-2007 and number of houses in each zone
Population Density
Zone
Seismic Zone
Factor (Z)
Shaking
Intensity
Houses
Number
% of total
II
0.10
VI (or lower)
4,39,86,517
17.78%
III
0.16
VII
11,58,68,042
46.86
IV
0.24
VIII
6,32,83,128
25.60
V
0.36
IX (or higher)
2,41,44,350
9.76
Table 3. Housing stock in India [source: census of India,
2001]
0 - 2000
2001 - 4000
Year of
Census
Number of
Houses
1961
10,98,00,000
-
-
-
1971
13,70,00,000
24.80
24.77
24.77
1981
17,08,00,000
24.67
55.56
30.79
1991
21,16,00,000
23.85
92.71
37.15
2001
25,68,00,000
21.35
133.88
41.17
2011
30,48,82,448
18.69
177.67
43.79
4001 - 6000
> 6000
Persons/km 2
Figure 4. Population density in districts of India (Based on census of
India, 2011)
54
The Indian Concrete Journal September 2014
Increase (%)
From
previous
decade
Cumulative
since 1961
Decadal
Increment
since 1961
POINT OF VIEW
led to shortage of technical manpower to undertake the
construction work, in addition to shortage of construction
materials. Figure 5 shows district-wise spatial distribution
of housing densities. Rural districts have up to 100 houses
per km2, towns 1000-1500 km2, cities 1500-2500 houses
per km2 and urban centers and metro go as high as 7000
houses per km2. As per 2011 census, district-wise density
of housing is higher near urban areas. Many of these high
density areas also lie in moderate to high seismic zones.
Housing Density
1.3 Vulnerability (V)
Earthquake vulnerability of a house is the amount of
expected damage induced to it by a certain level of
earthquake intensity. The earthquake performances of
the buildings, especially in the last two decades (Table 1),
indicate around 40,000 human fatalities caused primarily
by collapse of buildings. Except for Killari earthquake, all
other events occurred in known moderate to high seismic
zones. Damage caused to these buildings is unreasonably
high compared to any other country for similar level
of ground shaking. Serious departures are observed
especially in performance of RC buildings. During the
0 - 500
501 - 1500
1501 - 2500
> 2500
Houses/km2
Figure 5. Housing density in districts of India (Based on census of
India, 2011)
Table 4. Housing with roof and wall material from 2011 census of India
S.No
Item
Number of Houses (Census 2011)
Rural
%
Urban
%
India
%
15.02
Roof Material
1
Grass/Thatch/Bamboo/Wood..
33,126,016
19.94
3,611,906
4.60
36,737,922
2
Plastic/ Polythene
1,047,533
0.63
500,251
0.64
1,547,784
0.63
3
Hand made Tiles
30,386,085
18.29
4,863,880
6.20
35,249,965
14.41
4
Machine made Tiles
17,307,198
10.42
5,503,054
7.01
22,810,252
9.32
5
Burnt Brick
11,990,029
7.22
4,231,255
5.39
16,221,284
6.63
6
Stone/Slate
14,746,138
8.87
6,222,441
7.93
20,968,579
8.57
7
G.I./Metal/Asbestos sheets
26,522,852
15.96
12,476,710
15.90
38,999,562
15.94
8
Concrete
30,423,701
18.31
40,764,887
51.94
71,188,588
29.10
9
Any other
607,051
0.37
310,595
0.40
917,646
0.38
Grand Total
166,156,603
100.00
78,484,979
100.00
244,641,582
100.00
Wall Material
1
Grass/thatch/bamboo etc.
26,417,331
12.79
2,530,263
2.57
28,947,594
9.49
2
Plastic/ Polythene
762,256
0.37
335,575
0.34
1,097,831
0.36
3
Mud/unburnt brick
58,330,614
28.24
8,119,213
8.26
66,449,827
21.80
4
Wood
2,132,342
1.03
648,929
0.66
2,781,271
0.91
5
G.I./metal/asbestos sheets
1,269,359
0.61
1,062,510
1.08
2,331,869
0.76
6
Burnt brick
83,618,436
40.48
62,927,369
64.00
146,545,805
48.07
7
Stone
28,685,790
13.89
14797142
15.05
43,482,932
14.26
8
Concrete
3,699,096
1.79
7,284,583
7.41
10,983,679
3.60
9
Any other
1,648,466
0.80
613,174
0.62
2,261,640
0.74
Grand Total
206,563,690
100.00
98,318,758
100.00
304,882,448
100.00
The Indian Concrete Journal September 2014
55
POINT OF VIEW
Table 5. Housing with roof and wall material from 2001 census of India
S.No
Item
Rural
Urban
Total
No. of Houses
%
No. of Houses
%
No. of Houses
%
Roof Material
1
Gross, thatch, bamboo, wood…
4,88,12,470
27.49
45,73,534
6.94
5,33,86,004
21.19
2
Tiles, slates or shingles
6,52,99,492
36.78
1,25,91,573
19.12
8,11,44,290
32.21
3
Brick, stone lime
2,18,34,160
12.30
41,47,242
6.30
3,12,28,354
12.40
4
GI metal, asbestos sheets
1,86,65,296
10.51
1,18,21,919
17.95
3,04,87,215
12.10
5
Concrete, RBC/RCC
2,10,61,294
11.86
3,17,77,933
48.25
5,28,39,227
20.98
6
Plastic, Polythene
6,69,815
0.38
5,03,956
0.77
11,73,771
0.47
7
All other material not stated
11,94,986
0.67
4,50,682
0.68
16,45,668
0.65
10
Total
17,75,37,513
100
6,58,66,839
100
25,19,04,529
100
Wall Material
1
Gross, thatch, bamboo, wood…
2,21,62,932
12.50
25,74,189
3.60
2,47,37,121
9.93
2
Mud, un-burnt bricks
6,58,07,212
37.13
79,91,950
11.17
7,37,99,162
29.63
3
Wood
23,63,200
1.33
8,33,792
1.17
31,96,992
1.28
4
Burnt Brick
6,25,15,919
35.27
4,91,75,710
68.72
11,18,91,629
44.92
5
GI Sheets of other metal Sheets
7,76,677
0.44
11,22,001
1.57
19,98,678
0.80
6
Stone
2,03,47,899
11.48
51,33,918
7.17
2,54,81,817
10.23
7
Cement Concrete
22,53,979
1.27
42,86,359
5.99
65,40,338
2.63
8
Plastic, Polythene
4,77,498
0.27
2,44,278
0.34
7,21,776
0.29
9
All other material not stated
5,32,197
0.30
1,96,159
0.27
7,28,356
0.29
10
Total
17,72,37,513
100
7,15,58,356
100
20,90,95,869
100
Table 6. Housing with roof and wall material from 1991 census of India
S.No
Item
Rural
Urban
Total
No. of Houses
%
No. of Houses
%
No. of Houses
%
Roof Material
1
Gross, thatch, bamboo, wood…
5,32,76,234
37.26
58,27,404
12.56
5,91,03,638
29.46
2
Tiles, slates or shingles
5,49,23,205
38.41
1,22,86,604
26.49
6,72,09,809
33.50
3
Bricks, stone or lime
1,36,04,738
9.51
56,35,042
12.15
2,45,29,786
12.23
4
GI metal, asbestos sheets
99,28,111
6.94
45,67,502
9.85
2,04,32,153
10.19
5
Concrete, RBC/RCC
64,45,758
4.51
1,63,11,517
35.16
2,27,57,275
11.34
6
All other material not stated
48,08,404
3.36
17,59,044
3.79
65,67,448
3.27
7
Total
14,29,86,450
100
4,63,87,113
100
20,06,00,109
100
Wall Material
56
1
Gross, thatch, bamboo, wood…
1,70,56,489
11.93
25,31,939
5.07
1,95,88,428
9.55
2
Mud, un-burnt bricks
6,72,18,236
47.01
54,22,316
10.85
8,48,10,594
41.34
3
Wood
17,95,840
1.26
10,70,553
2.14
28,66,393
1.40
4
Burnt Brick
3,66,46,602
25.63
3,22,50,772
64.53
6,88,97,374
33.59
5
GI Sheets of other metal Sheets
2,51,910
0.18
7,64,956
1.53
10,16,866
0.50
6
Stone
1,72,84,400
12.09
44,19,591
8.84
2,17,03,991
10.58
7
Cement Concrete
11,55,760
0.81
28,00,780
5.60
39,56,540
1.93
8
Ekra
2,01,039
0.14
53,869
0.11
2,54,908
0.12
9
All other material not stated
13,76,176
0.96
6,66,373
1.33
20,42,549
1.00
10
Total
14,29,86,452
100
4,99,81,149
100
20,51,37,643
100
The Indian Concrete Journal September 2014
POINT OF VIEW
2001 Bhuj earthquake, they collapsed at an intensity of
shaking of VII, when MSK scale expects them to collapse
only after intensity IX of ground shaking. Thus, there is
urgent need to understand the housing risk in the country
to minimize the future losses of life and property.
1.3.1 Choice of Building Materials
The choice of materials used in construction throughout
the country is shown in Table 4; the choice for natural
materials is high. In the choice of roofing material, around
75% of houses in rural areas use natural and locally
available material for construction; in the remaining 25%
houses cement-based materials are used. On the contrary,
in urban areas, cement-based materials are upto 50% and
naturally available material the remaining 50%. For the
wall, 90% of houses use natural material only, But, in
urban areas, it is up to 10%. Tables 5 and 6 describe the
materials used in construction of roof and wall in 2001
and 1991 respectively. Comparing the materials used, use
of grass, thatch, bamboo and wood in roofing dropped
from around 30% in 1991 census to 21% in 2001 census.
During the same period, usage of concrete increased
from 11.34% to 20.98%. Also, plastics have found place in
construction in 2001 which were absent earlier. A similar
situation is seen also in the choice of material for wall
construction. But, earthquake resistance of the newly
introduced materials remains to be understood when
used for structural purposes. The dominant materials
of choice for roofing in rural areas are: 27.49% of grass,
thatch, bamboo, wood; 36.78% of slates & shingles; 12.3%
of mud stone or lime and 11.86% of concrete. In urban
areas, concrete is used for roofing in 48.25% cases. And,
the dominant material of choice for walling in rural areas
is: 12.5% of grass, thatch, bamboo, wood; 37.13% of slates
& shingles; 35.27% of burnt brick; and 1.27% of concrete.
And in urban areas burnt and un-burnt brick together is
75.55%.
with different materials e.g., brick walls in mud/lime
mortar, tiled roofing on wooden rafters, and doors and
windows made out of local wood. These technologies
were cost effective and were especially suited to rural
areas. Most materials used were available locally, like
bricks stones, lime wooden joinery roofing tiles, and
flooring stones. These houses stood for decades, and
many were environment friendly and conserved energy.
But, over the last two decades, many new materials and
building technologies were introduced first in urban
areas and later they found their way in rural areas. While
taking these technologies to rural areas, adequate caution
was not exercised. Hence, in many instances, advanced
technologies were thrust into rural areas without preparing
the people on the consequences of poor implementation
without engineering judgment. For, instance, burnt clay
brick in cement masonry was used in constructing walls
and RC slabs in roofs, in the second storey of a house
made in random rubble masonry in mud mortar in the
first storey.
2. HOUSING threat FACTOR (HTF)
Housing threat factor is defined as the cumulative of
the hazard at the site and exposure in the housing. This
definition is necessary to understand a possible scenario
where the housing in the country without earthquake
resistant feature is fully vulnerable to seismic shaking.
This is supported by the fact that 95% of the losses of
lives are generally in low rise housing and that about 97%
housing in India are masonry and non-engineered.
A housing threat factor is used to understand the overall
status of housing in India. This factor is obtained by
multiplying seismic zone factor (Z) of the seismic zone
by number of houses per km2 for each district in India
(Figure 6). Table 7 shows typical values of some districts
in India. The country is divided into four threat levels,
i.e.,
1.3.2 Choice of Building Systems
Level IV : Very high threat (HTF 2,00,000-6,00,000)
In India, numerous housing typologies are adopted;
each of them has many sub-typologies. In early years
after Independence, artisans, and carpenters, were easily
available with hands-on experience having constructed
houses of certain typology. They had skills and knowhow on traditional technologies of house construction
Level III : High threat (HTF 1,00,000-2,00,000)
Level II : Moderate threat (HTF
20,000-1,00,000)
Level I : Low threat (HTF < 20,000)
Level IV threat areas are those with high hazard and
higher population densities. Low housing risk areas are
The Indian Concrete Journal September 2014
57
POINT OF VIEW
those with low hazard and moderate to low population
densities.
2.1 How to Use the HTF Index
Threat assessment results in a quantitative index (it does
not have any physical significance) that gives a qualitative
feel of the level of severity of the problem. The actual
process of risk assessment is a detailed exercise and time
consuming. Even to begin such an exercise, a basis is
needed to start work of risk assessment from one quarter
and move forward. For instance, it is necessary to know
which districts have relatively larger problem compared
to all the districts in seismic zones III, IV and V. Therefore,
a simple measure is required to set a priority for starting
the formal initiatives of quantification of risk and then
taking up the mitigation initiatives. Proposed Housing
Threat Factor gives a broad idea of relative status of each
district (and not about individual houses) and where the
work can be started urgently.
The HRF index should be employed only to prioritize
the districts of the nation, so that national agencies can
concentrate their efforts and resources to build earthquake
resistance in housing in these districts to begin with.
Based on lessons learnt while implementing specific
housing initiatives in these districts, necessary changes
58
The Indian Concrete Journal September 2014
may be made in strategies, methodologies and resource
allocation to improve the implementation of housing
safety initiatives. The Housing Threat Factor index may
be used by:
(a) Housing ministries of central and state
governments in India,
(b) District Magistrates of critical districts with high
housing risk,
(c) NDMA, SDMAs, DDMAs, and municipal bodies,
(d) NGOs working in housing sector,
(e) architect and engineer professionals, and
(f) architects and civil engineering academia.
3. UNDERTAKING MITIGATION EFFORTS IN
INDIA
With 65 years gone after India’s independence, the subject
of earthquake safety is still NOT in the mandatory part of
the architecture and engineering education curriculum
across India. The matter re-iterated to the senior academics,
bureaucrats and policy makers to build the requisite
Table 7. Housing threat factor of select districts of India
District
State
HRF
Greater Bombay
Maharashtra
544,735
North 24 Panganas
West Bengal
446,074
Pune
Maharashtra
413,882
Medinipur
West Bengal
394,542
Thane
Maharashtra
377,690
South 24 Panganas
West Bengal
330,041
Barddhaman
West Bengal
284,887
Murshidabad
West Bengal
277,718
Jalpaiguri
West Bengal
270,831
Madhubani
Bihar
269,774
Ahmadabad
Gujarat
245,830
Purbi Champaran
Bihar
238,538
Muzaffarpur
Bihar
233,549
Kamrup
Assam
216,099
Surat
Gujarat
214,061
Darbhanga
Bihar
212,412
Haora
West Bengal
212,324
Samastipur
Bihar
208,974
Koch Bihar
West Bengal
208,110
Hugli (Chunchura)
West Bengal
207,631
POINT OF VIEW
systems to develop over the next two decades the large
manpower necessary to address earthquake safety of
the country. Post-earthquake emergency response alone
(which is the current strategy) will not solve the problem;
mitigation (i.e., safer constructions) actions need to be
taken urgently, if the country wishes to reduce the loss of
life in upcoming earthquakes.
masonry. And hence there is a great need to reflect this
need in undergraduate curriculum. Variety of Civil
engineering curricula are practiced by various universities
and institutes across the country. Comprehensive review
of these curricula is required to include a) traditional
construction technologies and b) at least a minimum
mandatory curriculum that prepares graduates to meet
the needs of the nation.
3.1 Bottlenecks in Implementation in the Past
Impediments to successful implementation are many.
It would be unfair to claim that there is a single list
of bottlenecks that arise in implementing mitigation
initiatives. In this paper, a partial list is presented of
some of the important concerns that arise on the various
mitigation initiatives. Table 8 presents this representative
list.
3.2 Appeal to Urgently Implement Mitigation
Initiatives in India
The earthquake risk to housing in India is largely
attributed to the choice of building material and
typologies. Around 90% of houses in the country were
made with natural materials. But, this is in great contrast
with the emphasis of the current civil engineering and
architectural education imparted across India. In light of
this the following critical initiatives are re-iterated:
3.2.1 Overhaul of Curriculum
The construction material is taught in at best 1 course
out of 30 plus courses credited by (~3% of the courses)
undergraduate civil engineering students. In particular,
the course on masonry is almost extinct in the curriculum
across the engineering colleges in the country. On the
other hand, 97% of the curriculum is addressing the small
minority of 2.6% of reinforced concrete houses in the
country. This is when masonry is still the most widely used
material in construction of houses and other buildings.
The present undergraduate courses provide almost
no exposure to structural design of masonry. Recent
advances in masonry units and use of reinforcement
in masonry requires students to be formally trained in
behavior and design of structural masonry. Further,
many heritage structures built with variety of masonry
types used to be preserved for future generations. These
require greater skill and understanding of behavior of
3.2.2 Train Manpower
There is a serious shortage of quality trained manpower,
from faculty members, engineers, architects who are
familiar with best housing practices. After 2001 Bhuj
Earthquake, MHRD supported an initiative for 3 years
to train teacher of engineering colleges in earthquake
engineering. Many faculty members and students got
benefitted through the program, the National Program
on Earthquake Engineering Education (NPEEE). The
duration of the program was not sustained long enough
to create requisite human resources to address the needs.
Another such effort was made by Ministry of Home
Affairs (MHA) to train large number of architects and
engineers, but was again for limited duration. Some
agencies like National Academy of Construction initiated
certificate programs for masons and bar-benders. But,
this needs to reach the larger populace of the artisans. All
relevant ministries of central government of India should
undertake long term program to train (in many cycles)
the professionals and artisans. Focused PhD program
with the housing agenda should be launched.
3.2.3 Share Best Practices
Technology development paves way to all-round growth.
Although the triumphs of technology marvels are
celebrated, maintaining technology to the contemporary
needs and its sustainability is often ignored. Current
construction practices are not in consonance with
the required pace of sustainable development. Large
workforce is shifting from rural to urban areas, and with
this the art of traditional construction is lost. At the same
time, these workers are not trained enough to handle
the new materials. As a result, best construction practices
are being lost and/or not imparted. There is a great need
to preserve the good construction practices. Processes of
constructing houses of different typologies need to be
The Indian Concrete Journal September 2014
59
POINT OF VIEW
Table 8. Some impediments to implementing earthquake disaster mitigation initiatives in India
S.No.
Item to be
implemented
Bottleneck
Way forward…
A. Technical Issues
A.1 CAPACITY BUILDING :: Introducing Earthquake Engineering Components in Technical Education
1
Change curriculum
Lack of slots in B.Tech. and B.Arch. programs
for introducing additional technical content
related to earthquake safety
2
Train teachers
Cannot get leave to attend extended
programs of up to 1 year
Undertake a national campaign to recruit additional teachers,
who will be training before joining the university/institute
3
Prepare teaching
resource materials
Lack of even basic books on earthquake
hazard, behaviour of structures, design
and construction of new structures and
assessment of existing structures
Commission a few faculty members with competence to
undertake this critical work
4
Augment library
and laboratory
infrastructure
Expensive equipment requiring high
maintenance, and so cannot be afforded by
all colleges
Develop regional facilities with separate teaching and
research laboratories
5
Initiate research
in universities/
institutes
Lack of research ethos, and large distraction
with consultancy
Academic administrations (especially in IITs and NITs) to
prioritize addressing national interests to be one of the critical
responsibilities of senior faculty members
A.2 CAPACITY BUILDING :: Continuing Education of Practicing Engineers and Architects
1
Find alliance partners
to undertake the
massive effort
Professional civil engineering and
architecture societies have not developed
a long term commitment to undertake this
gigantic task across the country
A non-profit industry-academia CONTINUING
EDUCATION CENTER to be created at regional level
with practicing engineers and architects as master trainers;
distance education technology to be leveraged to improve
efficiencies; coordination to be done by professional societies
2
Identify Master
Trainers
Professional engineers too busy with daily
work to undertake this long term effort,
and faculty members overloaded in their
universities/institutes
Undertake a national campaign to recruit additional teachers,
who will be training before joining the university/institute
3
Prepare teaching
resource materials
Lack of even basic books on earthquakeresistant design and construction of new
structures and seismic assessment of existing
structures
Commission a few practicing engineers and architects with
competence along with faculty members to undertake this
critical work
4
Undertake training
Need many batches of engineers and
architects to be training in each major town/
city
Develop city level master trainers to undertake this activity in
the evenings on weekdays
3. CAPACITY BUILDING :: Training of Artisans
1
2
60
Find alliance partners
to undertake the
massive effort
NAC, NICMAR, NITTRs, HUDCO, BMTPC,
CIDC, Polytechnics and ITIs are yet to work
together to create standard training modules
for masons, bar-benders, welders, carpenters,
plumbers, electricians, etc.
FICCI and CII to undertake this effort under CSR to
coordinate the potential partners, and work with NDMA
and SDMAs to pursue national and local governments to
prioritize this to allocate funds
Develop training
centers
HUDCO training centers that exist are too
few for the country; lack of passion of the
persons manning the centers and lack of
hand holding by construction companies
to encourage higher wages for trained
manpower has impeded this training effort
Construction companies to advertise that skilled labor rates
are higher and the expectation of skilled labor is certification
from one of the standard training centers; housing NGOs to
play a critical role in steering these programs to grassroots
level
The Indian Concrete Journal September 2014
POINT OF VIEW
Table 8. Continued
S.No.
Item to be
implemented
Bottleneck
Way forward…
Prepare teaching
resource materials
Lack of training material and modules in
local languages and dialects; lack of adequate
field level trainers
Commission a special effort through the governments to
undertake the translation work to prepare the training
materials as required; encourage more housing NGOs to
participate in this effort of training of masons
Undertake training
Participation in one program is seen to be
sufficient by the trainee
Certification should be introduced by the state governments
to examine skill levels of trained artisans; this will require
sometimes more than one programs to be attended by some
artisans
1
Undertake postearthquake damage
assessment of
buildings
All government departments and private
organizations keen to escalate damage
assessment figures
Governments to stop paying compensations for
reconstruction; Formal teams to be assembled by NDMA and
SDMAs to undertake post-earthquake damage assessment,
and give legal standing to the assessment made by these
teams, with checks and balances
2
Update bye-laws
at all municipal
government levels
Most publicly elected leaders have vested
interest to not allow updating of bye-laws
that ask for stringent performance standards,
which will require them to improve their
standards
A white paper should be developed on all such bye-laws
that are detrimental to earthquake safety; Courts have to be
moved to intervene to seek the urgent updating of bye-laws
in national interest
Penalise violations
from approved
construction
A strong nexus exists between municipal
offices and builders to eventually legalise
the illegal and unapproved constructions,
and this is happening through some existing
bye-laws approved by the publicly elected
local representatives; there is no field
inspection by neutral parties on the accuracy
of constructions as per approvals
Quality assurance systems to be put in place for all
constructions
1
Constitute
State Disaster
Management
Authorities and
State Executive
Committees in all
states and hold
meeting regularly
Governments lack priority on Earthquake
Safety of its people
Chairman, NDMA, to take steps to push states to mainstream
disaster management
2
Development of
strong techno-legal
regime
Absence of Peer Review (verification
of earthquake safety) by independent
professionals enlisted by local governments
Local governments to implement peer review system
3
Retrofit existing
lifeline structures
No expertise in the country to support the
exercise
Major effort of developing capacity in professional engineers
and architects to be undertaken urgently by NDMA
Banks seem to think that is too much work
to do, and that the municipality will verify
safety
RBI to initiate a strong techno-financial system related to
earthquake safety in all banks in the country
3
4
B. Legal Issues
3
C. Administrative Issues
C. Financial Issues
1
Financial lending
institutions to
independently verify
earthquake safety
of the constructions,
before approving the
loans
The Indian Concrete Journal September 2014
61
POINT OF VIEW
documented. For this, first the housing typologies being
practiced need to be understood and documented in
detail. High quality cartoons/animation strategies may
be adopted to do this.
and empowered to provide formal technical assessment
that has legal sanctity. This aspect requires deep discussion
and quick action to prepare sufficient number of groups
of the post-earthquake housing assessment teams.
3.2.4 Undertake selective Retrofitting
4. CONCLUDING REMARKS
Every year a large number of new houses are getting
added to existing stock of the country. Its absolute
number is large, even though small in percentage of the
already existing stock. Each earthquake in the last 23 years
demonstrated the major deficiencies of the existing stock
of housing across the country. Seismic strengthening of
these existing houses is a technology challenge at this
time. A comprehensive plan is required for promoting
systematic, formal and technically sound retrofitting of
houses, as it not only involves technology issues but also
social issues.
India has witnessed several moderate earthquakes in
the last two decades causing around 40,000 fatalities
and innumerable house collapses. The prevalent high
earthquake hazard, large exposure and high vulnerability
indicates that urgent action is necessary in 20 districts of
the country, as shown using index 200000. It is time to
assign value to the life of each Indian and take urgent
proactive actions. Five capacity building and mitigation
initiatives are presented in this paper, namely (1)
overhaul of curriculum, (2) train manpower, (3) share
best practices, (4) undertake selective retrofitting, and
(5) post-earthquake damage assessment teams. These
items have been oft repeated at meetings and in papers.
Unfortunately, there is a great mismatch between need
of the country in terms of earthquake safety on one hand
and number of available trained professional on another.
After 2001 Bhuj Earthquake, there are some initiatives on
items 2~5. But, all these solutions were short-lived due to
lack of long term vision. Hence, there is a need to speak
on these issues.
3.2.5 Commission Post-Earthquake Housing
Assessment Teams
After every earthquake, many teams carry out
reconnaissance survey to understand the behavior of
houses. But, houses which performed poorly and those
that survived pose one question-which of them can be
occupied after the earthquake. There is an urgent need
to study the performance of houses with following
objectives:
1. Houses that did not comply existing provisions,
2. Houses that complied with provisions,
3. Houses collapsed and
4. Houses that did not collapse.
Results in these studies will be valuable inputs for (a)
revising code provisions, (b) improving construction
practices, and (c) training engineers, architects and
artisans.
The task is tricky of assessing immediately after an
earthquake the damaged houses standing in the epicentral
region. There are safety, legal and financial implications
of any decision taken on these houses. Therefore, formal
teams should be commissioned well before the next event
in the country, trained in the methodology of assessment,
62
The Indian Concrete Journal September 2014
The lack of implementation of the much needed steps
is attributed to a system failure of all stakeholders in
the country, and cannot be attributed to any one set of
stakeholders; virtually, every stakeholder group has
defaulted. Of all the defaulters, three significant defaulters
are:
1. Academics in architecture and engineering colleges (who failed to upgrade the curriculum and
teach the much needed background to graduates),
2. Bureaucrats (who are generalists and fail to apply
themselves to specialized information of disaster
management, and always addressing the day to
day chores, than to long-term but critical needs of
the nation), and
3. Publicly elected policy makers all levels (who
have vested interests of running construction
POINT OF VIEW
contracts of all major projects across the country
with profit maximization motive, and no respect
for adherence to the design and construction standards and to quality control and quality assurance practices needed in the development of built
environment).
This paper attempts to bring to the public eye the urgency
of the matter, and develop a pressure group that can
sensitize these three critical groups of stakeholders to
undertake the measures that are in their purview.
References
1. BMTPC, (1997), Vulnerability Atlas of India 1997, Building Materials
and Technology Promotion Council, New Delhi
2. BMTPC, (2007), Vulnerability Atlas of India 2007, Building Materials
and Technology Promotion Council, New Delhi
3. MHA, (1961), Census of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government
of India, New Delhi
4. MHA, (1971), Census of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government
of India, New Delhi
5. MHA, (1981), Census of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government
of India, New Delhi
6. MHA, (1991), Census of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government
of India, New Delhi
7. MHA, (2001), Census of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government
of India, New Delhi
8. MHA, (2011), Census of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government
of India, New Delhi
9. GSI, (2003), Seismotectonic Atlas of India and its Environs, Geological
Survey of India, Kolkata
10. IS 1893 (Part I), (2007), Indian Standard Criteria for Earthquake
Resistant Design of Structures, Bureau of India Standards, New
Delhi
11. Jain,S.K., Murty,C.V.R., Chandak,N.N., Seeber,L., and Jain,N.K, (1994),
“The September 29, 1993, M6.4 Killari, Maharashtra, Earthquake in
Central India,” EERI Special Earthquake Report, EERI Newsletter,
Vol.28, No.1, January 1994, 8 pages
12. Jain,S.K., Murty,C.V.R., Arlekar,J.N., Sinha,R., Goyal,A., and Jain,C.K,
(1997), “Some Observations on Engineering Aspects of the Jabalpur
Earthquake of 22 May 1997,” EERI Special Earthquake Report, EERI
Newsletter, Vol.32, No.2, August 1997, pp 1-8
13. Jain,S.K., Murty,C.V.R., Arlekar,J.N., Rajendran,C.P., Rajendran,K.,
and Sinha,R., (1999), “The Chamoli, India, Earthquake of March 29,
1999,” EERI Special Earthquake Report, EERI Newsletter, Vol.33,
No.7, July 1999, pp 1-8
14. Jain,S.K., Lettis,W.R., Arlekar,J.N., Ballantyne,D., Chaubey,S.K.,
Dayal,U., Goel,R., Goyal,A., Hengesh,J., Malhotra,P., Murty,C.V.R.,
Narula,P.L., Saikia,C.K., Singh,M.P., and Vatsa,K., (2001), “Preliminary
Observations on the Origin and Effects of the January 26, 2001 Bhuj
(Gujarat, India) Earthquake,” EERI Special Earthquake Report, EERI
Newsletter, April 2001, pp 1-16
15. Jain,S.K., Murty,C.V.R., Rai,D.C., Malik,J.N., Sheth,A.R., Jaiswal,A.,
Sanyal,S.A., Kaushik,H.B., Gandhi,P., Mondal,G., Dash,S.R., Sodhi,J.
S., Santhosh,G., (2005), “The Great Sumatra Earthquake and Indian
Ocean Tsunami of December 26, 2004,” EERI Special Earthquake
Report #3, EERI Newsletter, April 2005, pp 1-12
16. MoHUAPA, (2007), National Urban Housing and Habitat Policy,
Ministry of Housing, Urban Affairs and Poverty Alleviation,
Government of India, New Delhi
17. Murty,C.V.R., (2007), IITK-BMTPC Earthquake Tips, National
Information Centre of Earthquake Engineering, IIT Kanpur
18. Murty,C.V.R., Sheth,A.R., and Rai,D.C., 2011, “M6.9 Sikkim
Earthquake of September 19, 2011,” EERI Learning from Earthquakes,
EERI Newsletter, Vol.45, No.11, November 2011 pp 6-7.
19. Murty,C.V.R., Raghukanth,S.T.G., Menon,A., Goswami,R.,
Vijayanarayanan,A.R., Gandhi,S.R., and Satyanarayana,K.N., Sheth,A.
R., Rai,D.C., Mondal,G., Singhal,V., Parool,N., and Pradhan,T.,
Jaiswal,A., Kaushik,H.B., Dasgupta,K., Chaurasia,A., Bhushan,S.,
Roy,D., and Pradeep Kumar,R., 2012, “The Mw 6.9 Sikkim-Nepal
Border Earthquake of September 18, 2011,” EERI Special Earthquake
Report, EERI Newsletter, February 2012, pp 1-14.
20. Rai,D.C., and Murty,C.V.R., (2005), “The Kashmir Earthquake of
October 8, 2005,” EERI Special Earthquake Report, EERI Newsletter,
December 2005, pp 5-8.
21. Seeber,L., and Jain,S.K., Murty,C.V.R., and Chandak,N.N., (1993),
“Surface Rupture and Damage Patterns in the Ms=6.4, September 29,
1993, Killari (Latur) Earthquake in Central India,” NCEER Bulletin,
Vol.7, No.4, October 1993, page 12
Dr. Ramancharla Pradeep Kumar holds a PhD degree in civil engineering from University of Tokyo,
Japan. He is an Associate Professor and Head of Earthquake Engineering Research Centre (EERC) at IIIT
Hyderabad. His research interests are numerical modelling of faults and tectonic plates, collapse simulation
of buildings, seismic evaluation and strengthening of buildings and concrete codes in India. He is a panel
member of CED 2: IS 456, IS 1343 and also member of Earthquake Engineering Sectional Committee of the
Bureau of Indian Standards.
C.V.R. Murty is a Professor in Department of Civil Engineering at the Indian Institute of Technology
Madras, Chennai. His research interests include the non-linear behaviour of reinforced concrete and steel
buildings and bridges, and of limit state design of reinforced concrete, relevant to earthquake-resistant
structures. He is a member of the Earthquake Engineering Committee of the Bureau of Indian Standards.
The Indian Concrete Journal September 2014
63